tv American Politics CSPAN September 13, 2010 12:30am-2:00am EDT
>> mr. speaker, i am very and news that he says the random which he claims has no mandate was in the manifesto which he campaigned on a at the last election. i know that labour is enjoying denying any responsibility for the past u-turn after you turn. do you know 100,000 members of the public have made suggestions about how we could try to bring some sense to our public finances without hitting the vulnerable, the front-on public services? have we heard a single suggestion from anyone on the benches opposite? not a single suggestion. until the labour party opposite catches up with reality, they will not be taken seriously. >> eleanor lang. >> thank you, mr. speaker. how can the deputy prime minister justify to hard- working taxpayers facing economic difficulties in their own families and businesses that he wants to spend 100 million pounds of their tax payer money
on a referendum on the voting system? >> i'm amused that my honorable friend gets a cheer from the members opposite who have advocated the very same proposal. that is the reason why we think it was a compelling case to save up to 30 million pounds in the cost of holding elections in may and the referendum on a separate occasion. we save money by combining them on the same day, an idea which i suspect she is not that keen on, but i hope she will become a supporter of overtime. >> kevin brennan predicts that the deputy prime minister is famous for his humility. [laughter] >> in this morning's report, is he now prepared to apologize for the mistake he made about
sheffield for a master's -- forgemasters and call for some funding for the project? >> as he knows, the regrettable reasons why the 80-million-pound loan that was announced by the previous government 11 working days before the general election to coincide with a nice boat -- a nice opportunity for the previous prime minister at forgemasters -- reason why that has not been able to proceed from this year's budget is that it is not affordable under this year's budget given that the structural deficit inherited was so much greater than we thought. in other words, it was a promise made without money available. it was a check written which the previous government knew would bounce. we have made it very clear that we'll continue to work with forgemasters to see how we can support them in the future once the budget situation becomes clearer after the comprehensive spending around. >> nick dakin.
>> chinese lanterns pose a threat to farmers because of the fire risk and because of the wire frames a constant -- better cut into small pieces by harvesting equipment so that wire is incorporated into animal feed, which can kill farm animals. what steps will the government consider to reduce the risk in this area? >> mr. speaker, i think everybody who lives and works in rural areas knows this is an issue which is causing a great deal of distress to both farmers and their livestock. we have been looking at ways to deal with the issue and reduce the risk posed by this -- these lanterns whilst not wishing to ban them completely. they've been in contact with manufacturers of the land turns and they have demanded that the lanterns, in the future, should be 100% biodegradable and have full safety instructions with
them. >> ian murray. >> with the deputy prime minister join me in paying tribute to those in my constituency who donate money to offer aid to pakistan? will the alter the get things seem to agree that bucket collections could be included? >> we will look at anything which could continue to encourage people to be as generous as they have been in responding to this truly horrific catastrophe. i was in pakistan just last week. i saw for myself the scale. it is genuinely difficult to understand. an area the size of the whole united kingdom has been submerged. 20 million people have been displaced. my theory is that the worst is still to come as waterborne diseases start taking hold. i welcome his active interest in this and will welcome him and all members from the house to work together to continue as a government and as a people to support the many distressed communities of pakistan.
>> mr. christopher chope. >> can i ask about the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill? if the bill is significantly amended in committee or defended on third reading, will the liberal democrats leave the coalition or can he give a guarantee that they stay? >> i'm not sure if this will please or disappoint him when i say that the persistence and resilience of this coalition is not dependent on any one single piece of legislation. you know, again i'm not sure if you'll be pleased or displeased, this bill is only one part of a much wider program of political reform, including giving people the power of recall -- to be able to sack their mp's. if they have been shown to do
something seriously wrong. i'm afraid that it does not begin or end with this one single bill. >> order. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air "prime minister's questions" on c-span2 its 7:00 a.m. eastern and then sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. at c-span.org, you can find an archive of past "prime minister's questions." >> monday, the u.s. senate impeachment trial begins its hearings for the prosecution of a u.s. district court judge who is trying -- charged with accepting gifts from those who had cases before him. it is expected to last throughout the week.
this starts at 80 a eastern on c-span2. >> monday, a discussion about ending world hunger, an economist and ordained minister, who was named a warrant -- world food prize laureate. watch the coverage on c-span. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of nonfiction books, public affairs, in history. it is all available on television, radio, online and social networking sites, and find our content any time on the c-span video library, and we take c-span on the road with our mobile content vehicle, bringing our resources to you. the c-span networks, now available in 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a
public service. >> now, the first colorado senate debate between michael bennett and republican challenger. they answered questions on the federal health-care law, policy, and their campaign ads. the debate was held in grand junction, camerota, and was organized by club 20, a coalition of businesses in western colorado. this is about one hour -- was held in grand junction, colorado.
michael served as managing director at a company and then went on to serve for two years as chief of staff for the mayor. he was appointed superintendent of public schools in 2005 and then appointed by the governor to fill the u.s. senate seat left vacant by ken salazar. in the u.s. senate, he serves on the agricultural, banking, and another. he has three daughters. his opponent is ken buck. he attended princeton university and earned his undergraduate degree in politics in 1991. he received his jerseys doctorate from 1985 at the university of wyoming law school -- he received his jurist doctorate -- his jd degree.
he worked with the department of justice in washington, d.c.. he then joined the colorado attorney general's office, where he was chief of criminal division. ken has served as an instructor at the university of denver law school. in 2004, he was elected as a district attorney. he and his wife have three children. panel, first of all, we have 8 person passionate about transportation issues for the past 20 years -- we have a persian. she served as a member of the regional transportation board in denver and was voted one of the 100 most influential people in our first 100 years. she moved to grand junction in 1997 and has chaired the 12 -- club 20 transportation committee
for the past three years. our next panelist is clint, who works for a rural group to help them recruit and retain health care providers through development. he also serves as a board member for the colorado rural development council. our next is shane, a government affairs manager for williams, and he is based in denver. he grew up in the grand junction area and graduated from mason state college. he served as the assistant director for energy of the kibler router department of natural resources and was a director for a senator -- director for the energy
department of natural resources. our final palace is the -- amy. she guides the planning and editorial content of all political news at a network and provides analysis, for world news with diane sawyer, good morning america, nightline, and this week with christine aumont pour -- with another reporter. [applause] at this time, we will ask the candidates to come on in. michael and ken.
don [cheers and applause] >> as with the earlier debates today and tonight, this started with a coin toss in the back room, and in our debate, ken buck was the winner, so he got to make his selection. >> the winner of the coin toss. >> that is right. he won the coin toss. as a result of that coin toss, mr. buck has chosen to go first in the opening comments, so, ken, you have four minutes. >> thank you. first of all, let me think club 24 sponsoring this and the other
sponsors and others for a participating in this -- let me thank club 20. also, that we think my wife " as we go through this campaign " -- let me thank my wife as we go through this campaign. it feels very comfortable being to your right, michael. [laughter] 18 months ago, i started a grass-roots campaign to earn everyone's support to be the next u.s. senator here in colorado. i have been to farms and factories and truss stopped -- truck stops and coffee shops, and i have heard the frustration of countless people. they are concerned about jobs. they are concerned about the economy. they are concerned about putting food on the table and paying their mortgage. america has $13 trillion of national debt. $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. a $1.40 trillion annual deficit.
it is so bad that the folks in washington, d.c., have not even attempted to pass a budget this year, and what do we do? we continue to overspend, overtaxed, and over regulate. i was in colorado this week, and this past saturday, and somebody yelled out from the crowd, "nken, we need jobs." we do need jobs, but we are not quick to get those jobs if we continue to overspend and overtax -- we are not going to get them. my opponent has become very comfortable with the washington, d.c., climate. he is saying one thing in washington, d.c., monday through friday, when he votes to increase our taxes and spending, and he says a quite different thing in colorado. in fact, he is preaching fiscal conservatism to us on sunday when he is back here. he has voted for the $860
billion stimulus bill. he has voted to bail out automobile companies and banks. he has voted to nationalize health care, and yet, when he comes back here, and runs for office, when he comes back here and runs for office, he says, well, we have $13 trillion of debt and nothing to show for it, and it is immoral to place this debt on our children, and he is right, but he should have realized that when you voted for the $862 billion stimulus package. [cheers and applause] we deserve more from our senators, and that is why i am running for this office. we deserve to make sure about not picking winners and losers. the marketplace picks winners and losers, not washington, d.c.
families have to balance their budgets. the state of colorado has to balance its budget. the federal government should have a constitutional balanced budget amendment so it is required to balance its budget. my opponent has mentioned on a number of occasions that d.c. is a corrupt environment, it is broken. i invite him to join me in calling for constitutional term limits so we do not leave people in a corrupt environment for toulon and they become corrupt. -- 40 along. [cheers and applause] the last, we need to focus on jobs. we need to focus our attention on giving small businesses the opportunity to create jobs and stop putting obstacles in their way. folks, there is a very clear difference between a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach, and i hope to earn your support to be our united states senator from colorado. [cheers and applause]
>> thank you. well, thank you very much for having me back in mason county again. it is wonderful to be here for the 12th time in 20 months. i want to think, of 20 and ms. brown for having me back. -- i want to thank club 20 and ms. brown for having me back and for those joining us late in the evening. like all of you, like everyone across our state and across our country, i remember exactly where i was on 9/11, on a business trip in mid air, when word came that terrorists had attacked our country. and killed thousands of americans. i remember going home, because we came back, being with susan and our two little girls at that time, the youngest of room was about eight months old, and holding her -- the youngest of
whom was about eight months old. watching those planes fly into the world trade center, and susan and i talked a lot about how the world had changed forever. the world that our children was going to grow up in was a different one. a lot has happened. we have lost over 5000 americans in two wars, 81 from colorado over the last decade. our economy has gone through one of the most troubling times in our nation's history. offact, we're coming slowly the worst recession since the great depression. but even before we were driven into this recession, if you look at the last period of economic growth in our country's history and our state's history, what you will see is that it is the
first time in our history that our economy grow and middle- class income fell. that had never happened before in the history of the united states. in colorado, the cost of health insurance went up by over 90%. the cost of higher education went up by, we used to say 50% and, but it is actually 60%, and at one stage, it is about 160%. we created no net new jobs in this great country of ours since 1998, and household wealth is the same at the end of the decade as it was at the beginning of the decade. that has never happened before. when the last administration went to washington, we lead the world in the production of college graduates. today, we are 15th in the world and falling like a stone, and if your child is living in poverty in a world or urban school district, your chances of grass -- graduating are roughly one in
900 -- living in poverty in a rural or urban school district. and i am being attacked by supporters of my opponent for having said what i believe is true. they must disagree. we have $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet, and in my view, nothing to show for it. we have not even had the dignity to maintain the assets that are parents and grandparents built for us. our roads, bridges, our source systems. much less to fill the infrastructure with the need to compete in the 21st century. transportation, transit, energy infrastructure. but what i have learned is the aspirations, whether republicans or democrats, independents, tea party people are so much more, and important than the divisive politics better going on back in
washington that i am so optimistic that not only this country can build a bright 21st century, but colorado will lead us there. thanks for having me here tonight. [applause] >> thank you, senator. again, as a result of our initial coin toss, we move into the next section of debate with questions from our four member panelists. the first questions will come from terry binder, and the first question will be directed to mr. buck. >> thank you for joining us, gentlemen. i am glad that you are there and i am here. building a national defense and our domestic economy. we funded our transportation system that gas tax for many years. however, we have never just these taxes for inflation, and we have not raised them since
the early 1990's. meanwhile, congress has required vehicles to meet ever higher standards, reduced in -- resulting in reduced gas tax per driver while our driving has increased. how do you propose we fund the nation's expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure into the future? >> there is no doubt we of declining revenue from our gas tax, and the answer is we are going to have to supplement that to a certain extent with the general fund money. i am opposed to raising taxes. i want to make that real clear. i think that when we look at raising taxes, we are going to do the exact opposite of what we need to do during a recessionary period. higher taxes means less jobs, less jobs means a smaller economy, and we spiral downward. we cannot at this point in time increase our gas tax, and it is in my view a very regressive tax.
it is a tax that is born and equally by those who have less, and that is not something that i think is going to -- it is a regressive tax. i am opposed to raising the gas tax. >> mr. bennet? >> as i mentioned, there are not just the unfunded liabilities note -- that ken talked about, but we have also not maintained our infrastructure. as a question points out, we are having more fuel-efficient cars on the road, which is a really good thing, if you care about
relieving us from our independent -- dependence on oil, not shipping billions of dollars of weak overseas, which we are doing right now to buy oil from people who turn around and give that money to fund terrorism against us. that is why these efficiency standards are so important, and i think we have to do is find financing mechanisms, which we can do at the federal level, which enable public-private partnerships that can build the infrastructure we are going to need for the 24th century in a much more expeditious way than the bureaucrats in washington could ever do. [applause] >> thank you, senator. . buck? -- mr. buck? ok, our second question will be asked by clint. >> demel men, we want to thank you both for your service. -- gentleman.
-- gentlemen, we want to thank you both for your service. clinics are a vital part of the safety nitpicky -- the safety net in rural colorado. what will you do to ensure that the rural health clinics remain vital and thrive? >> i have worked very hard in the last 20 months to fight for rural health care. i think this is something that we need to address. we also need to make sure that we recognize that we of 425,000 veterans living in colorado, when of the largest populations per capita of veterans in the
country, and a lot of them live in the rural part of the state, and a lot of them are having a tough time getting access to health care. because the v.a. is not where the are, so i believe we need more rural health clinics, and there are roughly 1000 been built across the country in rural america as a consequence of the health care reform bill that we passed. [applause] >> thank you, senator. mr. buck? >> if the answer was as simple as building more clinics, we could all collapse, but where do we get the money when we of $13 trillion of debt? we have a fundamental problem in this country, and it was not helped by adding 16,000 federal irs agents. and it will not be fixed -- it will not be fixed by
enlarging health and human services. i met with leaders in grand junction and the health care community, it is clear to me that we need to get away from the fee-for-service model that we have now. we need to adopt a model that brings greater efficiency at lowest costs and increase efficiency. it can be done in grand junction, but it is done in grand junction with a bottom-up model. it is not done with a top-down model. in fact, it is embarrassing that there was an injunction because of their solution to their health care model. grand junction is operating under a consent decree now, i think the federal trade commission, but we need to empower local communities. we need to empower rural communities. we do not need a one-size-fits- all answers from washington, d.c. [cheers and applause]
>> we all need to speak more directly into our microphones. >> thanks. i'm very glad you raised the work that st. mary's hospital is doing and also the rocky mountain health plan. if people want to know what my vision for health care is in this country, it is what you see at st. mary's and what you see at the rocky mountain health plan. it is good work. it is hilarious to your you talk about it, because that is exactly what we are trying to do -- to hear you talk about it. it came straight from st. mary's and the rocky mountain health plan. i am delighted you had a chance to see it. >> our third question will be asked by shane henry. >> thank you. since 1964, 43 wilderness areas have been designated in
colorado, totaling over 4 million acres. in 2009, president obama signed legislation that established another 54 wilderness areas nationwide and added another two million acres to the current 109 million acres that are in the national wilderness preservation system. congress is now talking about issuing more wilderness areas. what is your overall position on wilderness designation and what onld your position dabe opposed will and his proposal? >> if you are wearing a blue t- shirt, please do not to vote. let's show respect to everybody here. [applause] in fact, if you are wearing a white teacher, please do not do that also. [laughter] >> the folks that you have
brought from the western slope are much more polite, i guess. >> you must not have followed my campaign. who is here from the western slope. [cheers and applause] thank you. >> the congresswoman from denver, the former superintendent of schools from denver, and the former district attorney from denver should not be telling people in rural colorado how to take care of their land. we do not need president obama designating wilderness. what we need in colorado is a bottom-up solution where communities come together and decide on land use, not a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. that is exactly what has been happening. we will limit access to our land in western colorado. we need to make sure that the folks in western colorado are on board with limiting access. [applause]
>> if i did this wrong let me know. my sense of it is that you said you would never vote for another wilderness in colorado. i think that would be a shame because it is one of the great legacy is we have in our state. but i agree with you that these decisions ought to be made in consultation with people in the local communities, as i have done, for example, with the legislation i have introduced to make chimney rock and national monument, something that is supported by the commissioners in that area and something that i am very proud to be doing. my view is that we should be working closely -- listening closely to our local voices about what the right way to go is. we need to be in places where we hear each other talk. that is why my favorite room during this campaign has been
where democrats and republicans and tea party folks stop listening to each other and we really need to start again. that is also in wilderness, particularly. [applause] >> id is an interesting position, senator. there was a group of folks that got together and they worked very hard. gov. bill ritter and interior secretary salazar pulled the rug out from under them after they came with a great plan. local leaders came together and adopted a plan. you said nothing. you said gasoline nothing when the political forces in washington, d.c. and denver pulled the rug out from under them on a plan that would have worked. [applause] >> and the fourth
question will come from any walter. -- from amy walter. >> thank you. i like that you have matching outfits. you must tackle the to the before and. >> i wear the same clothes every day. [laughter] >> you must not have looked at the new footwear. it is very different. [laughter] >> i cannot see that from here. >> does yours have a hole in it? [laughter] >> ok, i did not know we would go that far with this. [laughter] independent voters, the fastest- growing voters are the unaffiliated voters. please explain how you plan to attract those voters and give specific examples on where you disagree with your party's
position. >> i plan to have an honest conversation with them as i have over the past 20 months. i have not limited myself to blue parts of the state. you can ask any question. you have heard me say that. you cannot hurt my feelings. i also ask people to forget this for a moment, the cable television their watch, and have a conversation. i think their aspirations are largely shared. i think politicians in washington is -- i disagree on an attempt by the obama administration to change the tax treatments for the depletion allowance and other
things that are important to our natural gas industry. i voted against that knowing that i would be tortured in my primary over it, which i was. and i knew that i may not win every vote on the western slope, which i may still not. but i thought it was the right to vote for colorado, which is the way that i look at these questions. i also agreed with the administration on the cancellation of the o'brien project, which would have taken effect here in colorado. i have voted to cap discretionary spending over and over again. i put in a bill called the deficit reduction act of 2009 that i can tell you that most people in my party do not like. there are numerous examples. >> all right. [applause] mr.] -- mr. bok. -- mr. buck.
[applause] >> i plan to run a grass-roots campaign. i will go to truck stops and gas stocks all over this state. i will listen to their concerns and express my views. how do i disagree with my party? i can tell you right now. i have said 500 times or 600 times that republicans are just as much to blame for the system as much as democrats. [applause] while the republicans brought some responsibility to the clinton years, they were absolutely irresponsible during the bush years. it was the fed's its spending. we have no business saying to our democratic -- it was the deficit spending.
we have no business say to our democratic friends that it is ok to raid the bank for our friends and that is not ok to raid the bank for your friends. [applause] >> i do not need to rebut that. i certainly do not agree that anything has been misleading about anything that we have said. it is true. he said that i said one thing and washington another thing here. i certainly disagree with him. he beat jane norton by saying a whole bunch of things that were supported by washington money and now he is changing his tune. that is what politicians do. >> now we will go through the
cycle panelists again. terry will ask her first question. >> iran represents a major threat to peace and security in our world. they have made clear their intentions toward our allies in israel by threatening to what their country off of the face of the earth. iran aspires to get nuclear succeeding inay be settin getting the material. what additional action, if any, should the u.s. take to deal with this very real threat. -- real threat to? >> we absolutely, positively cannot allow iran to have nuclear capacity. we need to make sure that we step up economic sanctions. we cannot rely on the united nations to be the lead in this area. we have to take the bull by the horns and make sure that we do this. [applause]
if, and only if, economic sanctions and other sanctions that we try to take do not work, we need to look at a military option. it is absolutely imperative. iran will change the balance of power in the middle east if it gets a nuclear weapon. we need to have the strength to either support our like israel in taking military action or take military action ourselves. we have too much at stake. why do we have to majestic? it is because we have created an energy dependence on the middle east. there are many reasons beyond our strong ally in the middle east, israel. the fact remains that we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. [applause] >> let me first start with a green largely within and say that i find it disgraceful that we have an energy policy in this
country that requires us to ship billions of dollars to the persian gulf to buy oil instead of drilling here the united states. it has tortured our foreign policy. i cannot think of a better legacy for our children than really -- and pricking their reliance on foreign oil. if i am working for you, -- and breaking our reliance on foreign oil. if i am working for you, i am working on this. we need to make sure that the sanctions are implemented strongly, wisely, and well, by not just the united states, but by the chinese and other people around the world so that we can shut off the ability of iran, among other things, to refine its petroleum and build new refineries. i will not take any option off the table, including the
military option, to stop iran from building a nuclear weapon. [applause] >> thank you senator. >> senator, how can you talk about having energy independence and support caps and trade at the same time? it makes no sense to me at all. [applause] we have the capacity to produce a lot more coal in the state of colorado and create a lot more jobs in the state of colorado i and clean coal energy is on the horizon. it will be retarded by a cap and a trade bill. [applause] >> the second question will be asked by clint. >> ust role development has recognize several pillars for rural america, food systems, energy development, economic development, and broadband access. how specifically will you work
to help usda role development and other organizations develop and enhance rural communities' capacities in these areas? >> i appreciate the question. rule committees -- rural communities and our state is suffering greater hardships in this recession. it is not just about opening markets for our crops and livestock, but that is a huge piece of it. it is not just about getting credit flowing again to our farmers and ranchers. but that is a huge piece of it. it is about the food systems that you talk about, broadly speaking on economic development, all of that. i have worked especially hard to try to get broadband access to our rural communities so that, among other things, our small businesses in rural colorado can compete with any business across
the world. and also so that our children in rural colorado can have access to world class education. i saw in math class taught to children in their school, action, it was an adult, but also in four other counties at the same time. there was -- it was a math class of higher level math than i have seen in a school district that i worked in. there is huge promise if we can build out broadband across our state. [applause] >> eyelid in rural colorado. well cannily -- i live in rural colorado. we are in desperate need of economic development. it is what is needed to build the education system. my wife worked for governor rollins in the economic development area in rural colorado.
we need to make sure that we are encouraging farmers to diversify their cripecrops. there are so many farmers who have grown corn for generations on their farms and have diversified into some floors and other areas and have found markets for -- into sunflowers and other areas and have found markets for their crops. a lot of the focus is on the front range. we need to find ways to encourage businesses to move to more rural areas so that those stay afloat. we have so many communities that are literally dying. their populations are decreasing at a rapid rate. we cannot allow that to happen in our great state. the diversity state -- the diversity in the state between our urban areas and our rural areas is what makes this state great. we need to assist our world
areas. [applause] >> thank you. senator. >> the only thing i want to clear up is one piece of the record. a few minutes ago, he said, why would you support capt. trade? i did not support to the cap and trade bill that passed in the house. it is an unproductive conversation to be fighting about cap and a trade or carbon tax. which we should be talking about is how to weave -- what we should be talking about is how to break our dependence on foreign oil and how to conserve energy that we have. rural colorado would benefit a lot if we focused on the question of how to produce energy in the united states, natural gas, biofuels, wind, and solar. [applause] >> the next question will be asked by henry. >> thank you. this will be a nice segue.
the united states does not have a strategic national energy plan in place. as a result, pacific legislative attempts to create new rules of the game, climate change, carbon emissions reductions, hydraulic fracturing, and others are seen as reactionary and industry- targeted. what should be the cornerstone for the national energy plan? >> i am sorry. is this for me? >> no, mr. buck. >> i am in favor of overall energy plants. we have abundant fossil fuels in this state. we have a bunch of coal and natural gas and oil. we're finding new oil fields regularly. we found one a few months ago.
we have to take advantage of what we haven't put people to work developing energy. we cannot let the fed will government, based on an proven science, tried to stop our need to develop energy in this state. we have clean coal technology, as i said before. my and standing is that it is five years or six years away from being much more environmentally friendly than it is now. we have resources, natural gas resources, that will power the western united states for a century if we were allowed to develop those and build the pipelines need to get that natural gas to market. we have to focus on all of the above energy policy and we cannot allow the federal government to pick winners and losers in the energy sector. we cannot allow the state government to do the same. it is wrong and it is inefficient. [applause] >> i really appreciate the way
you phrased the question. i think that has been a huge problem with the energy debate in washington. i tried very hard not to contribute to this problem and continue to focus our attention on what is the nature of the problem we're trying to solve. it is exactly the opposite of what the folks in washington do. they find a solution that some lobbyists brings in and says, here is the solution to a problem that may or may not exist. no one in business does it that way. a hospital or a hospital -- a nonprofit nor a hospital does it that way. i never purge my work that way. so the question of perspective -- i never approach my work that way. so the question of perspective is the way we are doing it right
now. big oil, major oil companies, have a real interest in making sure that we do not get to natural gas in our state. i can assure you of that. otherwise, 18-wheeler across this country would be running on natural gas today, which is actually cheaper for that purpose than imported oil. i look forward to working with everybody across our state to make sure we are driving this new energy economy. [applause] >> you have time for rebuttal. >> let's make sure, senator, when we are working with everybody that we are not driving higher costs in this state. that is exactly what we will get with the type of environmental legislation that you have supported in the past and that your party has supported and that the folks in b.c. are trying to ram down our throats. we are an energy-rich state.
we need to focus on clean, environmentally-friendly energy development. >> our last question will be asked by amy walter. >> my question is about the bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year. my question for both of you is do you support extending the tax cuts, including those affecting individuals making more than $200,000 a year or families making more than two hundred $50,000 a year. i would also like to explain -- more than $250,000? i would also like you to explain how it would be fiscally responsible. >> most republicans and democrats are to blame for the mess that we are in today. you look at the tax cuts and
they are the first tax cuts and our history where we cut taxes while we were fighting a war. in this case, it was two wars. which is how we went from $500 -- $500 billion in debt to more than $3 trillion debt. i would be open if there was a compromise to work with the other party to see whether we can do something on the ones for people who have higher-income as well temporarily. they're not paid for. cutting taxes from the very wealthiest americans, borrowing from the chinese to pay for it, and sticking your kids with the bill is not what i would call fiscal responsibility. [applause] we have to deal with these issues and find a way, as they expire, but ultimately.
i have been looking at how we cut taxes on small business and people who are creating jobs in the united states so that we can create an economy that is not just about consumer spending, not just about debt, but is about saving and growing. our tax policy should derive that. [applause] >> i think what we are debating has nothing to do with president bush and has nothing to do with tax cuts. it has to do with whether or not the government is entitled to your money or whether you are entitled to your money. [applause] my view is that you are entitled to your money. instead of the senator talking about the tax cuts, maybe he can tell us where families should be cutting to make up for the increase in taxes that they will have to pay. the simple economic fact is
that, as we increase taxes, we decrease jobs. we are in a recession right now and we do not want to decrease jobs. the folks who make over two hundred thousand dollars are often the folks that hire the folks making under $200,000. [applause] if we increase taxes on those folks, they will hire less and we will not get out of this recession and we will not improve the unemployment situation. i will tell you exactly why i think it is a 6 -- it is a prudent decision to maintain the tax structure we have right now. we need to cut spending. that is where we balance the budget. we do not balance the budget on the backs of americans who are paying higher taxes. we cut spending and balance the budget. >> thank you. senator. >> bush's rose -- bush is not relevant to this either, i agree. but you are advocating the same policies that led us here.
on top of that, to advocate or to support or to propose -- we will figure out of the verb -- a new federal sales tax that will raise the sales tax for middle-class people is a huge mistake. furthermore, what we are not entitled to is to leave their children with a $13 trillion debt. you can say that we will cut all the taxes, but we will not. my daughter says she is not paying a dime. >> we are going into the final portion of my debate -- of our debate. are you clear on how this operates? >> we will figure it out. [laughter] >> as i have said, i think that the economy ought to be job number one and we need to deal
with our deficit and our debt. i think there should be tax relief for small business owners and farmers. it should make it more affordable for people who have conservation easement and hand their land down to their families. help small business by allowing longer amortization for loans from community banks and make it easier to meet capital requirements, spurring incentives and innovation with tax incentives for high- technology research by 3 authorizing the expired research tax cut. -- he other hand >> i want to remind you that this is a question and answer portion. >> right. on the other hand, you said that the best plan is paul ryan's plan. the problem is that that plan would mean higher taxes for 75%
of americans and huge tax cuts to the very wealthiest, eliminating health care and social security, eliminating all corporate income-tax -- >> your question? >> he suggests that we can balance the budget with these tax cuts. it would not balance until 200063. that is unacceptable. my question to you is what more would you do that is proposed in paul ryan plan to balance this budget? >> first of all, what i said is that i respected paul ryan for putting something on the table. there are too many people back in washington, d.c. who will not answer simple questions, like where they are on card check, for example. [laughter] it is easy to criticize an individual like paul ryan for putting something on the table.
as i have said a number of times, i do not agree with many of the proposals in his plan. but even his plan does not balance this budget and does not get us out of this debt and 122063. i agree with you. that is unacceptable -- this debt until 200063. i agree with you. that is unacceptable. i think what we do, if we will get out of the situation, is to grow our economy. we have to strive for energy independence and stop the large transfer of wealth in our country's history, in the world history, frankly, to oil- producing countries. we can lower the corporate tax. we stop over regulating with epa regulations. and we do what we need to do to grow this economy so that we
have a larger tax base and get out of the mess that we are in. it is not a mess that you cause or that i caused -- other than your last 18 months -- is as something either one of the cause. >> i think you're right. i did not cause this mess. neither did you. i just want to get out of it. what you said was "the best plan i sought to balance the budget is paul ryan's plan," which is fine. it is just not going to work. tax cuts, i am all for that. but the reality is that 70% of our operating budget is a non- defense discretionary funding. 65% is medicare-medicaid, social security, and interest on our debt. >> mr. bock, you can control the
next four minutes. -- mr. buck, you can control the next four minutes. >> senator, the commercial that you have run against me, you have spent about $1 million in that commercial. the channel 4, channel 7, and channel and nine fat checks say that that commercial is misleading, it is false, and deceitful. "the dannon net -- "the denver post" this morning said that it was "misleading and fundamentally unfair." would you agree, based on independent analyses, would you agree to take that ad down? >> i will not. [applause] stand by the ad. i think that they did not know which ken buck they were fact
checking. i saw that article this morning. here is what we said. >> let me follow-up, senator. you have answered the question. >> no. >> that was the question. >> you're saying everyone else is wrong and you're right. >> they are mistaken. they are mistaken. it is an honest mistake. >> everyone is mistaken but you. >> question, you mentioned education, would you be in favor of a policy of education at the federal level? you said, i would be in favor. student loans? you said, there are some
programs in higher education that we can get rid of tomorrow. by the way, i believe that is true. there are other programs that will have to take some time to get rid of like student loans. >> you have just introduced a rule to stop filibustering. so let's try to do that now. [applause] >> senator. i will help with a bad bill also. >> all right. -- with that bill also. >> all right. >> , do i have left? a minute and a half, good. -- how much time do i have left? a minute and a half, good. >> i am sure that that was contained in legislation that i
voted on, but was not of interest to me. >> the $1.5 million is of interest to all of us. [cheers and applause] >> i am sorry, i thought you were trying to suggest that i did it because it has something to do with john murtha. it is the reason i have advocated earmark reform since i have been there. i have never supported and earmarked for a private institution. i am the only senator -- it is all about transparency, whether it is being done in the congress for in the administration, people are spending all kinds of money that they are not focused on. >> let me get the last word. i want to make a promise to you.
i will not use your misstatement in a commercial. [laughter] [applause] >> will you promise for karl rove and all those people who are funding your ads for you? [applause] >> we will go now to closing comments. based on the coin toss earlier, senator bennett will go first. you have three minutes. >> thank you. that is one minute more than i thought i would have. let me just say thank you to all of you for hanging in there so late tonight. it really has been an incredible privilege to travel 25,000 miles in this state in the last 20 months to listen, to hear people. i don't give long speeches. but i encouraged debate and their criticism and their ideas. we all essentially want the same thing.
but the time this stuff gets to washington, it is so screwed up by the special interests and the lobbyist -- by the way, i might be willing to think about a lifetime ban for lobbyists or term limits for lobbyists. [applause] but what we need to do is have confidence in each other, no matter what party we belong to, no matter what part of the state we live in. and we need to have confidence that all of us want to build a bright 21st century in color idea -- in colorado and this country. leave our children unconstrained by our willingness -- by our unwillingness to make tough choices. as long as we are willing to go back to our basic values, we will be just fine. i said in my opening that, when
we sat at our television on 9/11, my wife and i knew that the world had changed forever for us and our kids. but we also knew that the values of this country would endure, no matter what we say. it is the values of this country that allowed my mother and her parents, who survived the holocaust in warsaw, poland, to come to this country and start over again. they are the values that allowed them to build a small business, to educate their daughter, to help provide for their grandchildren. those are the values that we need to be focused on. generations of americans have faced even longer odds than the odds that we face. they have overcome challenges that, in their time, seemed impossible to solve. we can do the same thing if we
stop screaming at each other, if we're willing to listen, if we focus on the facts, and a gain a shared understanding of the facts. i absolutely believe that this country's best days are ahead of us. so thank you for being here tonight. ken buck, thank you for being here tonight. and club 20, thank you for having me. [applause] >> ken, you have three minutes. >> thank you club 20 and panelists and moderator. it is a great honor to be here. i hope the evidence is evident at this point. we have done our best to run a grass-roots campaign with the integrity, not denying what the rest of the world sees. we have done our best to make sure that we have told those folks in washington, d.c., senator bennett and his friends,
when the run-up a dollar trillion in debt, we protested. when they tried to nationalize the health care bill, we sent them e-mails. when we wanted to help with unemployment, we asked them to get off the backs of small business. when we saw the problems of illegal immigration, we asked republicans and democrats to secure our border. the funny thing is that they heard is, but they ignored us. on november 2, they will ignore is no more. [cheers and applause] we have a great opportunity with this election to give voice to those americans who have not given up on this country's experiment in limited self- government, who do not believe that america's decline is inevitable. we need to return to the liberating principles of our
founding fathers, as it was for the most of this country's history, it can be again. i'm going to take an oath right here and right now. i will take an oath that i will not swear allegiance to the republican party in washington, d.c. i will not swear allegiance to the lobbyists in washington, d.c. when i am sworn in in january, maybe november, if senator bennett agrees to step down, i will put my left hand on the bible and raised my right hand, and i will take an up to the constitution of the united states, so help me god. [cheers and] applause -- cheers and applause in this election, we have a choice. we can repeat history or we can make history. .y name is ken buck i ask for your support so that we can make the history that
your children and their children can be proud of. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> the cook political report and cqpolitics.com rate this race as a tossup. >> it has hurt arizona's economy fiercely and we hear the stories everyday progress with the midterm elections about 50 days away, follow campaign 2010 online. it is easy to follow the candidates and issues any time, all free, on your computer.
>> from sunday's "washington journal," two republican and democratic strategists discuss the midterm elections. >> washington journal continues. >> and our sunday roundtable with two familiar faces. welcome back to both of you. thanks for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> let me begin with you because boats of you are blogging. you are for the hill and youor for the reports. you said most of the discussions on the president's iraq speech focused on the political importance and the policy but we should not undervalue its nonpolitical importance to the american psyche. how so? >> i think it's important whether you're democrat, republican, conservative,
liberal, to mark the end of this phase in iraq. it's been sort of dominated on news, our lives. we have young people for whom they've only known us for war in iraq. so to mark the end of that is important. in addition, i thought it was important for the president because it is something that he said he would do during the campaign. it's something that democrats campaigned on in 2006 and i think to mark the end and make good, show that you're making good on a promise is very important. >> in your blog you say it was nice for the president to recognize president bush. they had a phone call the day that he delivered his remarks in the oval office. you added, though, i wonder if the current president acknowledged that the former president was right. i doubt it. >> the whole thing about that iraq speech was nice that he called the president. but the way that we got t such good shape in iraq was with president bush's courageous decision to do the surge. and i don't think that president obama wanted to
acknowledge that in his speech, and i understand why because he was wrong on it. and i just thought it's my duty to point that out. >> your response? >> i think it was clear. the president also got attacked from the left for not pointing out the things about which president bush some would say lied. but i think the president felt it was more important, rather than one side or the other, to go straight dow the middle and say we're getting out of iraq. that's what's important, to acknowledge president bush's role i think in a positive way i thought that was the right thing to do. it was not the place for a political approach. >> leth me talk about a number of posts. this is from the opinion section.
and then, this. john? >> well, i like the first comments. i think that the republicans have had two rotten elections in a row, and it's really the pendulum has swung far left in the country. politically. but the country is still very much center right. so i think it's going to be a fairly big election. if you look at the turnout models, voters are much more excited about this election. if you look at all the different progress noss caters from charlie cook to larry to stew, they see this election
moving dramatically towards the republican candidates. i think that it's a reaction -- all mid-term elections tend to be a referendum on the current presint. let's face it, the economy is not doing well, hasn't had an uptick. people are angry, they're upset. the number one thing that the obama administration passed was the health ce legislation which is exceedingly unpopular with voters. one of the number one issues in many districts. so you add that all in and it's going to be be a very good election. it's still going to be tight margins. republicans aren't going to get 290 votes in the hou. so they're going toave to -- there's going to be a situation here where it's going to be very difficult to get major progress done. but perhaps that's what people want, less big government and spending. >> let me put another theory on the table. republicans pick up 20 to 30
house seats and gain four or five senate seats but do not gain a majority. what happens within the republican leadership in congress? >> you know, thexpectations are pretty high. so i think that republicans will see that as a loss and i think the ramifications will be that there will be a lot of soul searching. did we do enough at the campaign level to get the right candidates in there? and that's a definite possibility because the democrats have a lot of money and they're going to spend it right now and there are some candidates out there who tea party candidates who might not be the best candidates to win in a normal election year. now, tha being said, this is not a normal election year. i think a lot of those tea party candidates are going to win. >> let's remember, first of all, that a number of those same progressoss caters did not think president obama would be president. but i think there are three factors that we can't fully measure at this point. one, as john mecksed, is money.
and we know that when it comes down to the end of a race, having money, democrats happen to have more money overall campaign by campaign than republicans the. obviously republicans will get a lot of help from outside groups, but money at the end of the day, how that gets spent is going to have an impact. secondly, while people talk a lot about the enthusiasm gap and the enthusiasm on the part of republicans, i think we should remember that that enthusiasm has actually been enthusiasm from folks in republican primaries against the republican establishment candidate. that's very different than the kind of voter that comes out in a general election. so again, i think right in we can't quite know how that's going to shake out when many of these candidates as you're already seeing, the nrsc has sent baby sitters out to kind of tamp them down a lit bit. those folks are going to have to move to the middle. how do they do tt without upsetting the tea partiers?
and the next thick is mobilization. i think the president did an excellent job at the press conference. i think he's fighting back. democrats have a better message of drawing that contrast and how that impacts democratic voters and getting them out in the next 50 or so days we don't know and you can't meare that in a pole. >> we'll get to your calls. you can join the conversation on line twitter.com/c-span wj. the front page of the philadelphia enyirer has this. . .
when we came into office, we came in under tough economic circumstances. many said, let's sit on the sidelines and let the democrats solvent. we got a lot of resistance early. what is also true is that, when you take on tough issues, like health care or financial regulatory reform, where there is a lot of money at stake for them and where the issues are so complicated that it drags on for a long time, you end up having a lot of big fight here in town
and it is messy. it is frustrating. big fights in town and it is messy and frustrating. >> the president seems to want to blame john bainer for his a againeda not working out very well. >> he disagreed on healthcare and cap and trade and the stimulus. the president has finally lately come up with a couple tax proposals that make sense. he wants to cut taxes in one area and raise taxes in another.
the reason the president is struggling right now is that h a againeda doesn't work. the american people are coming up saying this doesn't work. g.o.p. leader tightly bound to lobbyist. you both read the piece? >> yes. it is obvious that under the leadership, we would go back to the sa. this whole k street infa structure. that sounds a lotted like tom delay to and what got republicans in trouble in 2006. >> isn't that what happened in 2002? >> not so far as giving out checks to tobacco lobbyists on the floor.
it is not that we are blaming him, we are saying if republicans were in charge, they would go back to many of the same policies that got us in this mess. if you are truly interested in doing something for the american people, here is a place we can agree. we may disagree on some of these other things. from a policy perspective and a political perspective, this shows a lot of what happened and that republicans really haven't wanted to work with the president.
joining us, good morning on the democrat's line. caller: good morning. i keep hearing the republicans say that they are going to create jo. how can you create jobs when factuallies around in the city are going overseas. they keep saying elect us, we are going to create jobs. how are you going to help the working people when you won't extend unemployment. they have children to feed and homes. these jobs was already leaving america under the bush administration. they are trying to make it look like when obama got in there, the jobs were leaving all of a sudden. my niece is working for a firm that they are sending her to
china and india to train people. in a few months, she'll be out of a job. >>hank you forhe call. who wants to take that. guest: john boehner was a business owner that created jobs. president obama never worked in the private sector. if you talk to business owners, the assault and increase in taxes and the big worry that taxes will increase even more. there's a perfect example of this in the "new york times," you have this story about the
1099 crisis that will require every small business owner and every expenditure over $600, they have to fill out a form. do you know how much that will take for people? >> obviously, we disagree. we've gone through a period of deregulation. what's happening. toys are coming in from china. there's a point we have to say wait a second. some regulation is right. we won't say go